Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
1347 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 Michelson– Morley experiment: A misconceived & misinterpreted experiment Mohammad Shafiq Khan H. No. 49, Al-Farooq Colony, Rawalpora, Srinagar, Kashmir– 190005, India [email protected] Abstract A thorough review of the Michelson–Morley experiment reveals that the experiment had been not only misinterpreted but also misconceived. Under the theory & methodology adopted by Michelson & Morley the reasons of misconception and misinterpretation have been found to be: 1. Doppler Effect of light was not taken into account and 2. The motion of the solar system was not also taken into account. Since this experiment formed the basis of misinterpretation of absence of luminiferous ether in the space and as the consequence of absence of luminiferous ether the concept of length contraction in the direction of motion, theories of relativity, space–time concept and big bang theory were adopted. The basis of all these theories and concepts is challenged. The present article is the detailed and corrected version of the article ‘Ultimate Proof of Energy Theory of Matter & Cosmology’ Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010a) necessitated by the article ‘Foundation of Theory of Everything; Non-living & Living Things’ Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). This article finally explains the Michelson-Morley experiment. Keywords: Michelson – Morley Experiment, time-frame, luminiferous ether, recessional velocity, blue-shifting, red-shifting, anisotropy, Lorentz symmetry Introduction ‘In what precedes, only the orbital motion of the earth is In the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) it is considered. If this is combined with the motion of the solar stated that the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010a) system, concerning which but little is known with certainty, should be considered for its contents wherein it was the result would have to be modified; and it is just possible suggested that the Michelson–Morley experiment was that the resultant velocity at the time of the observations was misinterpreted for concluding the absence of luminiferous small though the chances are much against it. The ether as the Doppler Effect was not taken into account. This experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three article describes that the said experiment had been not only months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided’. misinterpreted but also misconceived to conclude the A serious lapse had been committed by Michelson in the absence of luminiferous ether. To understand this article experiment concluded and reported under article Albert readers are supposed to have thoroughly studied the articles Abraham Michelson (1881); which had been aptly pointed ‘The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous out by H. A. Lorentz. This serious lapse could be easily Ether’ (1881) by Albert Abraham Michelson, ‘On the Relative understood by below reproduced para of the article Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether’(1887) by Michelson and Edward Morley (1887); Albert Abraham Michelson & Edward Morley, Mohammad ‘In deducing the formula for the quantity to be measured, Shafiq Khan (2010b), and ‘Energy Theory of Matter & the effect of the motion of the earth through the ether on the Cosmology’ Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010c). path of the ray at right angles to this motion was over looked. The history, background and consequences of The discussion of this oversight and of the entire experiment Michelson–Morley experiment are very well-known and as forms the subject of a very searching analysis by H. A. such need not be discussed herein. In this article the Lorentz, who finds that this effect can by no means be conclusions drawn from ‘null’ result of the said experiment disregarded. In consequence, the quantity to be measured are challenged on the same premises on which the had in fact but one half the value supposed, and as it was conclusion about the absence of the luminiferous ether was already barely beyond the limits of errors of experiment, the drawn. Article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) describes conclusion drawn from the result of the experiment might the foundation of a theory which challenges the physics well be questioned; since, however, the main portion of the which evolved during the twentieth century and since the theory remains unquestioned, it was decided to repeat the basis of twentieth century physics is the ‘null’ result of experiment with such modifications as would insure a Michelson–Morley experiment and the evidence that the said theoretical result much too large to be masked by experiment was misconceived and misinterpreted would experimental error’. indirectly substantiate the theory put forward under the Now then the final picture of the experiment; as article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). described by Michelson–Morley; could be represented by the How Michelson – Morley experiment was Misconceived & Fig.1. Since readers are supposed to have studied the article Misinterpreted Albert Abraham Michelson (1881) and Michelson and The perusal of the articles Albert Abraham Michelson Edward Morley (1887) thoroughly as such Fig.1 & (1881) and Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley experimental set-up would require no description. However it (1887) would reveal that only the orbital motion of earth was be borne in mind that in the calculations which follow it is considered as rotational motion of the earth and the orbital & presumed that ether exists in space and the light propagates recessional motion of the solar system were not considered in ether with a constant velocity ‘c’ with respect to the ether for drawing the conclusion. To clarify this fact a para from at rest. Also the instrument which includes mirrors M1 & M2 the article Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley and semi-silvered mirror/point of interference are in motion (1887) is reproduced as follows with respect to ether with a velocity v. Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1348 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 Dv Dv cv cv 2 Dv 2 2D 2 c v2 2 Dc 2 2 c v2 2D v2 1 2 c v2 2 D(1 2 ) 1 c v2 2 D((1 2 )...........(13) c 2D Let t1 be time required for propagation of light from ‘a’ to ‘b’ and let d1 be the distance the mirror M1 travels during the time t1 (Since mirror M1 is moving toward the position ‘a’ and d1 is the distance mirror M1 moves with respect to ether at rest during the period light pulse reaches the position’b’) ct 1 D d 1.............(1) Since the instrument moves in ether with a velocity v d 1 vt1.................( ) ct1 D vt1 D .........(3) cv ; Dv d1 .........(4) cv ct 2 D d 2.........(5) ; d 2 vt 2............(6) D ...........(7) Hence cv ; d2 Dv .......(8) cv Let ‘d’ be the distance mirror M2 moves during the period the light propagates from ‘a’ to the mirror M2 and the time be denoted by t ct D d ..........(9) ; t D c2 v2 d vt.........(10) 2 .......(11) d Dv .......(1) c v ; The distance traversed by the light in the direction of the earth’s motion to arrive at the point of interference is D-d1 + D+d2 D d 1 D d 2 2D d 2 d 1 Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) 2 2 D2 d 2 D2 d 2 D2 Similarly t2 be time required for propagation of light from ‘b’ to ‘f’ and let d2 be the distance semi-silvered mirror travels during the time t2 ; d2 is distance traveled by semi-silvered mirror with respect to ether at rest during the period light pulse moves from position ‘b’ to ‘f’ Then 2 interference is t1 t2 neglecting the terms of fourth & higher order as Michelson & Morley had done. The distance traversed by the light in the perpendicular direction to the earth’s motion to arrive at the point of D2 c2 c2 v2 D v2 1 2 c D 2v 2 c2 v2 ..........(14) 1 v2 2 D 1 2 c 1 v2 D(1 )...........(15) 2 c2 neglecting the terms of fourth and higher order. From equation (13) and (15) we deduce that the difference of the distances traversed by light in the two arms of the experiment is D v2 c2 . Evidently the distance traversed by light in the arm of the experiment along the direction of motion of instrument is higher by D v2 c2 . The time taken by the light pulse in traversing the vertical arm is 2t; so t D v2 c 1 2 c “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org ..............(16) M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1349 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 The time taken by the light pulse in traversing the horizontal arm is t1 + t2 D D cv cv Dc t1 t 2 2 c v D t1 t ..............(17) v2 c(1 2 ) c t 1 t neglecting the terms of fourth and higher order; we could write (16) and (17) as D 1 v2 D v2 t (1 )....(18) t 1 t (1 2 )....(19) c 2 c2 c c ; Evidently the time taken by light pulse in traversing the horizontal arm is more by Dv 2 c3 . So far the calculations of the Michelson–Morley experiment match with the calculations in this article. The reason of misconception and misinterpretation of Michelson–Morley experiment had been that without measuring the actual distances traversed by the light pulses in the two arms of the experiment; before the two light pulse were allowed to interfere; and without measuring the actual time taken by the light pulse in traversing the two arms of the experiment the inference was drawn that the time taken by the light pulse in traversing the two arms of the experiment is same and also the distances traversed by the light pulse in traversing the two arms of the experiment is same as the consequence of the ‘null’ result of the shift of the interference fringes; when the instrument is revolved through 900 without considering the Doppler Effect. It needs no over-emphasis that Doppler Effect had to be taken into consideration before drawing any conclusion. Now then if it is shown that notwithstanding the differences in the distances and time taken by the light pulses in traversing the two arms of the experiment; before these were allowed to interference; there had to be no shift of the interference fringe when the instrument is revolved through 900 after taking the Doppler Effect into consideration; that should leave no doubt that the Michelson–Morley experiment was misconceived and misinterpreted. In what follows is to show that the experiment was misconceived and misinterpreted which even an under-graduate student of physics can understand. Let us consider the propagation of the light pulse in the two arms of the instrument separately (Fig.2). As the light pulse moves from ‘a’ (semi – silvered mirror) towards the mirror M1 and by the time it reaches the mirror M1 the mirror moves to the position ‘b’ at a distance ‘d1’ from the original position of the Mirror M1. Assuming that there is luminiferous ether and light propagates at a fixed velocity ‘c’ with respect to the luminiferous ether. Since light moves with a defined velocity ‘c’ with respect to the ether at rest and since the mirror M 1 is moving towards the point ‘a’ so the mirror M1 will observe the Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) light as blue-shifted according to the Doppler Effect. By the time light pulse reaches mirror M1 the point ‘a’ will shift to the position ‘g’ which is at a distance ‘D’ from the position ‘b’ of the mirror M1. As the light pulse is reflected from the mirror M1 from the position ‘b’ and by the time the light pulse reaches the point of interference the point ‘a’ reaches the position ‘f’ at a distance ‘d2’ from the position ‘g’. since the ether is supposed to be at rest and light moves with respect to ether with a velocity ‘c’ the point of interference is receding from the point ‘b’ with a velocity ‘v’ thus according to the Doppler effect the light will be observed to the redshifted as it reaches the point ‘f’. Let the total number of waves which the light will have to traverse to reach the point ‘f’ be NH. NH D d1 BS D d .............(0) RS Where BS is the wavelength of the blue-shifted light due to the approaching motion of the receiver mirror M1 with the velocity . . and RS is the wavelength of the red-shifted light due to the receding motion of the receiving point (point of interference) with the velocity ' v ' . Let the o be wavelength of the same light as observed by the observer who is at rest with respect to the ether. The Doppler Effect; as was & is known presently in non-relativistic physics; had to be taken into account and the change in wave-length is given as follows: v c 1 ............................( 1) 0 BS .............................( ) v c D d1 D d NH 0 RS 1 0 v 1 c NH D v c Dv D cv 1 Dv cv 0 0 v 1 c 1 0 v c cv cv Dc Dc NH c c cv 0 cv 0 D D D NH ..................( 3) 0 “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org 0 0 M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1350 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology M2 In so far as the propagation of light along the direction perpendicular to the direction of motion of ν the instrument is concerned, D it has been conceived probably for the first time in the scientific history of Michelson–Morley experiment that a receding d d motion of mirror M2 is a f h involved while the light Fig. - 3 pulse propagates form the point ‘a’ towards the mirror M2 and also the receding motion is involved when the light pulse is reflected form mirror M2 as it proceeds towards the point ‘f’; the point of interference (Fig.3). As the light pulse proceeds from point ‘a’ to the mirror M2 which is at a distance ‘D’; the light pulse traverses not the distance ‘D’ but actually traverses the D distance 1 2 ; which is more than ‘D’. Hence a receding v c2 motion is involved while the light pulse traverses from ‘a’ to the mirror M2 and also during the time the same light pulse is reflected from the mirror M2 till the light pulse reaches point ‘f’; the point of interference. Additional distance traversed by the light pulse while moving from ‘a’ to M2 or M2 to ‘f’ = D 1 2 = Accordingly the light pulse, while it traverses in the arm perpendicular to the direction of the movement of the instrument, is also red-shifted because of the receding velocity of Now VRS 0 1 v2 1 2 2c VRS be the ...............(5) Thus the number of waves which the light will have to traverse in the vertical arm say Nv Nv= Distance traversed wavelength Distance traversed is given by equation (14) 2D 1 Nv v c2 Equating D Nv v2 1 2 c v2 c2 0 1 v2 2 c2 (1 1 v2 1 2 2 c 0 ; 2 1v ) 2 c2 to 1 v2 c2 after neglecting the terms of fourth & higher order. v2 c 1 2 c Nv v2 c2 1 v2 c c 1 2 2 c neglecting the terms of fourth & higher order. Velocity of receding 1 v2 ...........(4) 2c Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) D .................(6) 0 We deduce from equation (23) and (26) that whatever be the distances traversed by the light pulses and whatever be the time taken by the light pulses in traversing the two arms of the instrument before the light pulses interfere; v2 the light pulses have to traverse the same c 1 2 number of waves in the two arms of the c instrument. When the instrument is revolved through 900 the number of waves would remain the same and as such there could not be any shift in the interference fringes. Thus when we take Doppler Effect into consideration there had to be ‘null’ result of the experiment despite the fact that there is difference in the time taken by the light pulses in traversing the two arms of the instrument and also despite the fact there is the difference in the distance traversed by the light pulses while traversing the two arms of the instrument according to theory and methodology of Michelson & Morley. This should be sufficient to show that Michelson–Morley experiment was misconceived and misinterpreted to conclude the absence of the luminiferous v2 1 2 Additional Distance c Velocity of receding D Time Period over which the additional distance is traversed c c 1 . Thus the wavelength of the light in this arm of the instrument is red-shifted and let wavelength of the red-shifted light. D = 1 v2 2 c 1 D ISSN: 0974- 6846 Velocity of receding while the light pulse propagates from the mirror M2 towards the point ‘f’ is the same. D Time period over which the additional distance is traversed No. 10 (Oct 2011) D “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1351 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology ether. However, Fig.4 & Fig. 5 and calculations would reveal that the result of the experiment would remain the same when the movement of the instrument with respect to the luminiferous ether is reversed. Dv .......(7) cv ; d 1 vt 1 d vt Dv .......( cv The distance traversed by light pulse form point ‘a’ to ‘b’ is D+d1 while the light pulse is red-shifted as the mirror M1 is moving away and similarly the distance traversed by the light pulse after it is reflected is D-d2 and during this travel light pulse is blue-shifted. Thus number of waves which the light pulse has to traverse in this arm of the instrument . NH D d1 D d RS D ISSN: 0974- 6846 There is one more aspect which is being considered probably again for the first time in the history of MichelsonMorley experiment which needs to be taken into account to finally decides upon the Michelson–Morley experiment. This aspect concerns the distances traversed by light pulses in the horizontal and vertical arms from the semisilvered mirror to the point of the interference. The horizontal light pulse travels the distance of d1+d2 from the original position of the semi-silvered mirror when it interferes with the vertical light pulse; whereas the vertical pulse travels the (horizontal) distance of 2d from the original position of the semi-silvered mirror when it interferes with the vertical light pulse. d 1 d vt1 vt Dv Dv Dvc 2 ........(30) c v c v c v2 Dv d ....................(31) c2 v2 d1 d Equation (30) & (31) could be written also as Dv Dv D D cv cv NH 0 0 v v 1 1 c c Nv No. 10 (Oct 2011) BS d1 d d Dv c Dv c 1 ...........(3) v2 1 2 c 1 ................(33) v2 1 2 c Evidently d 1 d d Dv 1 1 d 1 d d 2 c v v2 1 1 2 c2 c 2 2 Dv v 1v (1 2 1 ) c 2 c2 c ....................(9) 0 neglecting the terms of fourth & higher order. d 1 d d D v3 c3 This is the ultimate dependence of the shift of interference fringes on the velocity of the earth. Now according to the calculations of the Michelson & Morley the Here also the formulae (24) (25) and (26) would apply Nv D 0 Hence even then there has to be the ‘null’ result of the experiment. This condition will arise when the experiment is repeated after six months when the direction of motion of the instrument is reversed due to the position of the earth. Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) difference of distances is v2 D 2 c which corresponds to the 4 .04 of the distance between interference fringes of 100 v3 the yellow light but actually the difference is D 3 which c “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1352 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology would correspond to 4 .000004 of the distance 100000 between interference fringes which in no case could have been detected at the time. Detection of shift in the interference fringes to this extent is being detected presently with highly accurate and sophisticated Michelson–Morley experimental instruments. Factually this fringe shift is negligible and we may safely conclude that the ‘null’ result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is actually the evidence of the existence of the luminiferous ether. Recall equation (23) and (26) the number of wavelengths which the two light pulses travel before they interfere is independent of the velocity of the earth and these only depend on the wavelength of the light and the lengths of the arms. So the future experiments like Kennedy-Thordike experiment (1932) and later experiments using lasers and masers which have been misinterpreted as the proof of the theory of relativity; actually confirm the existence of the luminiferous ether. Recall equations (14) and (16) The distance traversed and time taken by the light pulse in the vertical arm is D Distance = v2 1 2 c D Time t c 1 ....(34) ; v2 c2 ...(35) D v2 1 2 c Time t 1 t D v2 c 1 2 c Since the ‘null’ result of the Michelson–Morley experiment was misinterpreted to conclude that there is no difference of time or distances while the light pulse traverses in the two arms of the experiment, it was proposed by the Lorentz & FitzGerald that the experiment could be explained only if we assume that there is length contraction in the direction of motion 1 by a factor of v2 c2 . Thus in the above equations (horizontal arm distance traversed and time taken) we have to replace D by Distance = v2 D 1 2 c D 1 2 then these equations would be; Time t 1 t v c2 Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) D c 1 ISSN: 0974- 6846 These equations now equate with equations (34) and (35) Now if we assume that there is no luminiferous ether and the velocity of light is ‘c’ irrespective of the motion of the source and the observer. Then if 2D is the distance light pulse has to traverse with the contraction already included, then actual distance between the point ‘a’ and the mirror M 1 is D v2 1 2 c . Thus the actual distance traversed by the light pulse in the horizontal arm is D the time taken is v2 c 1 2 c D v2 1 2 c which exactly matches with 1 v2 c2 of space contraction and time dilation. The solution arrived by Voigt later on became the Lorentz transformation on the basis of the ‘null’ result of the Michelson–Morley experiment wherein it was concluded that there is no luminiferous ether and accordingly the velocity of light had to be treated as constant ‘c’ irrespective of the relative motion of the source and the observer. In absence of the luminiferous ether; for which the misinterpretation of Michelson–Morley experiment served as the basis; there was no alternative but to adopt the space contraction and invariability of velocity of light irrespective of the relative motion of the source and the observer as the intrinsic characteristic of light. When these two concepts are applied to the transformation between two coordinate systems in uniform relative motion; the outcome is the time dilation. To demonstrate this let us consider the Galilean transformation between two coordinate systems in uniform relative motion; we will consider only the transformation of the space coordinates x ' x vt Let the time of the two coordinate systems be t and t’ Adopting the space-contraction x ' ( x vt )................(36) Adopting the invariability of velocity of light and x ct Equation (36) could now be written as x ' ct ' ct ' (ct vt ) 2 v c2 and accordingly equation (34) and (35). This being one of the strange coincides and the second coincidence was that Woldemar Voigt in the same year i.e. 1887 proved mathematically that the D’Alembert’s wave-equation of space and time dependent scalar wave function is not invariant under Galilean transformation and he arrived at a transformation in which there is a factor of Similarly recall the equations (13) and (19) which gives the distance traversed by the light pulse and time taken by the light pulse in the horizontal arm Distance = No. 10 (Oct 2011) v t ' (1 )t c “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org or t ' (t v x)......(37) c2 M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1353 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology Thus time dilation is the outcome of the adoption of the space contraction and the invariability of velocity of light as Woldemear Voigt’s mathematical solution had predicted. But in absence of the luminiferous ether the concepts of space contraction in the direction of motion and invariability of velocity of light as the intrinsic characteristic of light were adopted despite these concepts were illogical, irrational and against all known science even at the time. Logically, the experimental measurement of refractive indices of different transparent materials loudly and clearly reveals that the velocity of light does depend upon the medium and cannot be intrinsic characteristic of light. Let there be source of light O and there be three observers A, B and C with the instruments for measurement of wavelength of the light they receive. Without any reference to the existence of the luminiferous ether, the three observers be such that the observer A is in receding motion with respect to the source of light O with a velocity ‘v’, the observer B be at rest with respect to the source of light O and the observer C be in approaching motion with respect to the source of light O with a velocity v. Now according to the Lorentz transformation the space between O & A and O & C is contracted whereas there is no effect on the space between O & B. This suggested that almost the same space is contracted and the same space, between O & B, is not contracted. This evidently is illogical and seems to be absurd on the face of it. Fig.6 O A V B C V Keeping in view the Fig.6 consider the very well known experimentally and theoretically studied Doppler Effect. It should be borne in mind that Hubble observations are simply the experimental measurements of the Doppler Effect. Now according to the Lorentz transformation the space is contracted when the observer is approaching or receding. In classical physics as well as in the modern physics including relativistic physics light is known to be a wave phenomenon. Since space is contracted due to the approaching or receding motion of the observer with respect to the source of light so the waves should get contracted and thus the wavelength should be reduced. Hence according to the Lorentz transformation light should be blue-shifted whether the observer is approaching or receding the source. This is against all the experimental observations of the Doppler Effect especially Hubble observations wherein only redshifting have been observed; if we presume that red-shifting is not due to expansion of space which shall be shown in this article. Thus the concept of space contraction in the direction of motion cannot be correct. Consider the same Fig.6. There is the same source of light, same space and same types of instruments with observers A, B & C and the only difference is the relative Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 motion of the observers with respect to the source. It will be illogical and irrational to even imagine that the difference in the relative motion of the instruments with respect to the source could change the wavelength of the light being emitted by the source or the relative motion of the source and the observers could affect the space. There has to be something intrinsic to the instruments which changes due to the relative motion of the instruments and the source of light as the result of which the wavelength of the same light is observed to be different. That is exactly what the theory put forward in the article Michelson and Edward Morley (1887) has established. Due to the relative motion of the source and the observer; which would cause difference in motion of the observer with respect to the ether; which being the cause of the difference in the time frame of the observer. Michelson and Morley in no case, should have ignored the motion of the solar system about which little was known at that time, as honestly conceded by them. Thus even the misconceived and misinterpreted conclusions of the Michelson–Morley experiment had to be provisional till everything about the motion of the solar system was known. Michelson and Morley had decided that the effects of the motion of the solar system could be neglected if the experiment is repeated at the intervals of three months and if there is no effect on the result of the experiment. But this decision of Michelson & Morley; as will be explained; is one of the fundamental errors in the theory & methodology adopted. A thorough review of the Michelson–Morley experiment would not be complete if we do not consider the motion of the solar system. As established in the article Michelson and Edward Morley (1887) and also proved in this article that the circular motion of the earth could not result in any considerable shift of the interference fringes when the instrument is revolved by 900. Now let us consider the situation when the instrument is aligned in the direction of the motion of the solar system. The formulae and the principles will remain the same and the mathematical deductions would also remain the same when we considered the orbital motion of the earth. As we have seen that according to the Michelson & Morley the difference of the distances traversed by the light pulses before they interfere is v2 D 2 c whereas the actual difference of the distances as worked out in this article is D v3 c3 . According to the calculations of the Michelson & Morley there should have been the shift of 0.04 interference fringes of the yellow light when the instrument is revolved by 900 whereas actually according to this article there could be the shift of .000004 interference fringes. But since the solar system is by now known to be revolving around the centre of the galaxy with an orbital velocity of about 7.3 times than the orbital velocity of the earth around the sun. Thus the shift of the interference fringes when the instrument is aligned in the direction of the motion of the solar system would be (7.3) 3 = 390 times that what we have worked out while we have considered the orbital motion of the earth. Thus the highest shift of the interference fringes could be 0.0015 (for yellow “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1354 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 light) when the instrument is aligned in the direction of the v motion of the solar system. Hence the shift of the D c c interference fringes would vary from 0.000004 to 0.0015 (for Michelson & Morley and thesis of this article is yellow light) depending upon the alignment of the instrument v v D with respect to the motion of solar system at the time of the c experiment. Thus the result of the experiment would depend where ν is the velocity of the earth. Thus this ratio is 10,000. upon the position of the place on earth where the experiment This has to be the highest possible ratio. Now consider the is undertaken. position when the instrument is aligned along the motion of The Michelson–Morley experiment has been repeated the solar system. In this case the difference of distances since 1887 and every time there had been improvement in traversed by the light pulse in the two arms of the the quality of light (anisotropy) and instrumentation but the results fall within the range as predicted in this article by a vs 3 experiment is D 3 vs is the velocity of solar system ) strange coincidence. In the absence of luminiferous ether, c these studies are made under the context of violation of the whereas according the Michelson & Morley the difference is Lorentz symmetry and anisotropy of space. In the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010a) the same v mistake was committed which Michelson had committed in again the same D (ν is the velocity of earth). Thus this c his explanation of the 1881 experiment. Besides I had arrived at the same conclusion as in this article; but with the vc help of very crude calculations wherein d, d1 and d2 were not ratio would be . Since the solar system is known to be vs 3 taken into account but only the Doppler Effect was taken into account. revolving around the centre of the galaxy with an orbital Finally I could not think of any other simpler way of velocity which is about 7.3 times the orbital velocity of the showing that Michelson–Morley experiment was c 10000 earth, hence the ratio would be 5 . misconceived and misinterpreted which even an under (7.3) c 390 graduate student of physics can understand without any difficulty. Thus the ratio would vary from 25 to 10,000 depending upon Experimental & Theoretical Evidences the position of the place of the experiment on the earth. Even under the methodology & theory adopted by Michelson Following table gives this ratio in respects of Michelson& Morley; which will be shown to be incorrect there are Morley experiments conducted up to 1930. sufficient experimental & Table I (the erratic experiments of Miller has been excluded and only the easily available theoretical evidences which experimental results on internet have been quoted) favour the thesis put forward Name Location Year Fringe Fringe Ratio in this article and which also shift shift confirm that Michelson-Morley expected measured experiment was misconceived Michelson and Morley Cleveland 1887 0.4 < 0.02 40 and misinterpreted. Since the or ≤ 0,01 difference of distances traversed by light pulse in two Morley and Miller Cleveland 1902–1904 1.13 ≤ 0.015 80 arms of Michelson–Morley Miller Cleveland 1923–1924 1.12 ≤ 0.03 40 instrument, if we presume luminiferous ether in the Miller (sun light) Cleveland 1924 1.12 ≤ 0.014 80 space according to the Michelson & Morley is v D c and when the instrument is revolved by 900 there should be shift in the interference fringes by D v c Kennedy Piccard & Stahel Pasadena/Mt. Wilson with a Balloon 1926 1926 0.07 0.13 ≤ 0.002 ≤ 0.006 35 20 Piccard & Stahel Piccard & Stahel Brussels Rigi 1927 1927 0.13 0.13 ≤ 0.0002 ≤ 0.0003 185 185 Michelson et al. Joos Mt. Wilson Jena 1929 1930 0.9 0.75 ≤ 0.01 ≤ 0.002 90 375 fringes. Now according to the thesis of this article there could be shift in the interference fringes to the extent of D v3 c3 . Now when we presume that the instrument is aligned in the plane which is perpendicular to the movement of solar system; then we have to consider only the orbital motion of the earth. Thus the ratio of expected shift of interference fringes under Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) The perusal of the Table 1 would reveal that the thesis of this article is confirmed by the experimentation spread over about half a century. Since last a few decades; in absence of the luminiferous ether; these studies are made under the context of misconceived anisotropy of space. The experimental results under the anisotropy of space are also consistent with the thesis of this article. Working out the exact correlation between the experimental results of experiments conducted under anisotropy of space is irrelevant and beyond the scope of this article. However the misconceived anisotropy “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1355 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology of space has to be proportional to v c which is of the order of 10 which; coincidently; being the experimental observations. This should be sufficient experimental evidence for misconception & misinterpretation of Michelson-Morley experiment and existence of luminiferous ether under the methodology & theory adopted by Michelson & Morley. Final explanation of Michelson experiment Under the theory & methodology adopted by Michelson & Morley the Doppler Effect had to be taken into account the way non-relativistic Doppler Effect was and is presently known. Secondly the motion of the solar system also had to be taken into account. In the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) a transformation was derived between the ether at rest frame of reference and the reference frame which is in any uniform motion with respect to former frame of reference. Under that transformation there is absolutely no effect on any aspect of light/radiation when the moving reference frame is in uniform circular motion without any component of receding or approaching motion. Firstly Michelson and Morley should not have converted the orbital motion of earth into linear motion and worked out the calculations on that basis. This is basis of all the confusion created by Michelson-Morley experiment and this is the fundamental error in the theory & methodology of Michelson & Morley. If we assume that sun is in the galaxy whose centre coincides with the centre of the universe and has no recessional component for the purpose of simplicity of explanation. The transformation derived in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) is r ' r vt ' t' t Where 1 cˆ.v 1 c Now for the circular motion the condition that t’=t=0 and the origins of two coordinate systems coincide cannot be applicable; hence for such the coordinate systems the transformation would be r ' r R vt ' & t ' t R being the radius of the coordinate system in circular motion. Since for circular motion cˆ.v 0 ; as ĉ is the unit directional vector of light; source of which is at the origin of ether at rest frame of reference. Hence the transformation would be r ' r R vt ' & t ' t Since the time-frame of the two coordinate systems is the same and as explained in article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) [4] no Doppler Effect would be called into play. For such circular motions we could for all practical purposes and for all calculations treat the ether at rest. Since the vertical as well the horizontal arms of the Michelson-Morley instrument have the same angular motion; Michelson & Morley should not have assigned uniform linear motion to Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 the instrument. This is true about the rotational motion of the earth also if the sun & the galaxy had no recessional motion. But since the solar system & the galaxy (of which sun is one the stars) are having the circular motion as well as recessional motion. For the component of the circular motion of the solar system we could safely assume ether to be at rest. The calculations done in this article are applicable to the recessional velocity of the solar system rather than the motion of the earth. It should be borne in mind that since the time-frame of all the components of the instrument and the earth is the same; hence though Doppler Effect will be called into play but it will not be detectable. But the velocity which is to be considered is the resultant recessional velocity of the solar system) & the galaxy (of which the sun is of the stars. Thus the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment which presently are being found with highly sophisticated instrumentation are concerning the resultant recessional velocity of the solar system & the galaxy (of which the sun is of the stars; which vary depending upon the position of the experiment on the earth and the alignment of the instrument with respect to the direction of the resultant recessional velocity. The most important theoretical evidence in favour of the thesis of this article would be the invariance of the waveequation in the ether at rest frame of reference and any other frame of reference which is in uniform motion with respect to the ether at rest frame of reference. The wave-equation in the ether at rest frame of reference is c t In the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) we have derived the transformation between two coordinate systems; (in spherical polar coordinates) one of which is at rest with respect to the ether at rest frame of reference and the other is moving with velocity v when the origins of the two coordinates are transformation is coinciding at t t'o . The r ' r vt '...........(38) t ' t.................(39) Where 1 ...........(40) cˆ.v 1 c ĉ being the unit directional vector of light, source of which is at the origin of the ether at rest frame of reference. Evidently cˆ.v is the recessional or approaching velocity of the reference frame. The spherical polar coordination have been adopted for derivation of transformation between the two coordinate systems in relative uniform motion (one of which is the absolute reference frame of ether at rest) because this is the most suitable coordinate system which describes the motion of the celestial objects. The transformation could be simply applied in two dimensions which in no case would be over-simplification. Assuming the conditions of “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org r 0,0 1800 and 0 3600 for M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1356 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology the radial coordinate, polar angle and azimuth angle respectively. The moving reference frame could be described in the spherical polar coordinates by assuming polar angle = 00 wherein only radial coordinate r and azimuth angle are variables. Now Laplacian in spherical polar coordinates is No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 c 2 2 2c 2 2 2 2 r 2 2 r r 2 t 2 c2 2 2c 2 2 2 (r ) 2 r r (t ) 2 1 1 1 (r ) (sin ) 2 2c 2 2 r r r r sin r sin c 2 2 2 r ' Since Hence r ' r ' 2 c 2 '2 2 t ' 0 1 (r ) r r r Thus r r r Thus wave equation in two dimensions with written as c c 0 could be c ........(41) r r r t Equation (38) could be written as after multiplying both sides by ĉ cˆ.r cˆ.r cˆ.v .t ' r ' r cˆ.v .t ' r ' r cˆ.v .t For any point in space which is observed with the help of light/radiation r ct so r ct r ' r cˆ.v c r cˆ.v 1 r ' 1 . r c 1 cˆ.v c r ' r and also r ' r Dividing both sides of equation (41) by Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) 2 t ' This should show that the wave-equation is invariant under the transformation derived in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) wherein the luminiferous ether is supposed to be present in the space. In the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) the value of was derived when the same transformation was adopted and applied such that the waveequation is invariant. For those under-graduate students of physics who do not understand the invariance of the waveequation of the wave-motion of light/radiation under a transformation to a moving coordinate system, this means that velocity of light is constant with respect to the moving coordinate system or reference frame irrespective of its motion with respect to the absolute reference frame of ether at rest. Since for the transformation between ether at rest frame of reference and the reference frame having circular motion would give r ' r and t ' t ; evidently the waveequation is invariant under such a transformation. Readers have to bear in mind that in all moving reference frames the observed velocity of light is constant in the time frame of the moving reference frames and the time frame of the moving reference frames would depend on the net recessional velocity of the moving reference frames. Discussion Voigt, Lorentz and Einstein did not realize that there could be any other transformation which does not involve any space contraction and under which wave-equation could be invariant. It has been shown that Michelson-Morley experiment was misconceived and misinterpreted. With ether in space, the main task being the derivation of the transformation between two reference frames; one of which has to be the absolute reference of ether at rest and other reference frame being in uniform motion with respect to the ether at rest frame of reference; and secondly to show that the velocity of light/radiation is constant irrespective of the relative motion of the source and the observer. These tasks have been accomplished in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). Michelson-Morley experiment was considered as the experimental proof of length contraction of space in the direction of motion and this coupled with the invariability of velocity of light/radiation irrespective of relative motion of source and the observer as the reason of time dilation which subsequently lead to the space-time concept, theories of relativity and big bang theory. Having shown that MichelsonMorley experiment is in fact experimental evidence of the “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol. 1357 Vol. 4 Indian Journal of Science and Technology existence of ether the simple conclusions are that concept of space-contraction in the direction of motion, space-time concept, theories of relativity and big bang theory cannot be correct. This article and Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) are unique in the sense that these articles justify the Doppler Effect & Hubble observation and show that space is absolute as there is not a single direct experimental evidence of space contraction. Secondly the main evidence of space expansion is the Hubble observations of red-shifting of the visible spectrum of the light from the galaxies. Since the time frame of the receding observer (receding with respect to the ether at rest frame of reference) is slower than the absolute frame of reference of ether at rest accordingly the observer will observe the wave phenomenon of the light/radiation on its time frame and the observed frequency of the wave phenomenon will be reduced and since light/radiation is observed to have a constant velocity ‘c’ with respect to the observer; hence the wave length of the light/radiation will be observed to be increased (red-shifted) depending upon the receding velocity of the observer. Conversely wave-length of the light/radiation will be observed to be reduced (blueshifted) due to the approaching motion of the observer. In the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) it has been shown that in nature galaxies and stars have only the receding motion with respect to each other; hence this explains the red-shifting of the visible spectrum of the light as observed by Hubble. With the help of thesis put forward under this article and the theory put forward under article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) it will be a very simple proposition to show that the conclusions drawn from Sagnac experiment are also misconceived and misinterpreted. As described in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) once the existence of luminiferous ether is adopted everything could be logically, scientifically and mathematically explained. The secrets of state of existence of space, time, matter, radiation and that of interactions in nature are contained in the luminiferous ether and when we adopt the existence of luminiferous ether all secrets unfold which stand described in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). The invariability of velocity of light irrespective of the relative motion of the source and the observer as the intrinsic characteristic of light is simply a preposterous axiom in absence of the luminiferous ether & difference of time frames of Cosmologically in nature the motion of the stars and galaxies are spiral motions with the outward recessional component of the motion for reasons already explained in article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). Conclusion The article shows that Michelson-Morley experiment was misconceived and misinterpreted to conclude the absence of the luminiferous ether. In absence of the luminiferous either, Michelson-Morley experiment cannot be explained without introducing the contraction of space in the direction of motion. Contraction of space in the direction of motion coupled with the invariability of velocity of light irrespective of the relative motion of the source and the Review Indian Society for Education and Environment (iSee) No. 10 (Oct 2011) ISSN: 0974- 6846 observer leads to the time dilation and interdependence of space and time - in short space-time concept. Thus this article shows that space contraction in the direction of motion & space-time concept and so theories of relativity, big bang theory and every science and theory based on these concepts cannot be correct. This article confirms the existence of the luminiferous ether; the physical characteristics of which are described in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). The alternative state of existence of space, time, matter, radiation and luminiferous ether is described in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). The humanity was deceived by denying the existence of ether in the space which is visible to even a layman. If during the night anybody stands near an electric lamp with the filament and stresses the muscles of the eye; he would see the shining ether around the lamp. The concepts and theories based on the space-time concept and contraction of space in the direction of motion have resulted in the evolution of the physics in the twentieth century which fundamentally cannot be correct. The physics so evolved has been taken too far; as far as to deny the existence of God. The alternative theistic state of existence of space, time, matter, radiation, luminiferous ether and the nature of the interactions in nature is described in the article Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b). This article together with articles Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b), Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010c) and ‘Theory of Origin & Phenomenon of Life’ by Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010d) are the scientific evidences against the philosophy of materialism; which philosophy has been adopted by the mankind for science; both physical and biological sciences; social, political and individual life since last about one and a half centuries. Acknowledgement I am thankful to Mir Faizal for being in constant touch and for fruitful discussions during the preparation of this article. I am also thankful to N. Gajendran for the encouragement for pursuing this research. References 1. Albert Abraham Michelson (1881) The relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether. Am. J. Sci. 22, 120-129. Available on www.archive.org/ details/americanjournal62unkngoog 2. Albert Abraham Michelson and Edward Morley (1887) On the relative motion of the Earth and the luminiferous ether. Am. J. Sci. 34 (203): 333-345. Available on www.aip.org/history/exhibits/gap/ PDF/michelson.pdf 3. Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010a) Ultimate proof of energy theory of matter & cosmology. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 3 (8), 948-954. Available on www.indjst.org 4. Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010b) Foundation of theory of everything: Non-living things and living things. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 3 (9), 955-981. Available on www.indjst.org 5. Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010c) Energy theory of matter & cosmology. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 3 (8) 943947. Available on www.indjst.org 6. Mohammad Shafiq Khan (2010d) Theory of origin & phenomenon of life. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 3 (8), 937942. Available on www.indjst.org. “Unraveling the truth in experimental science” http://www.indjst.org M.S.Khan Indian J.Sci.Technol.